On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 08:02 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we prefer to optimize this a bit though, perhaps we can first move
> > > the node->lock = 0 so that it gets executed after the "if (likely(prev
> > > == NULL)) {}" code block and then delete "node->lock = 1" inside the
> > > code block.
> >
> > I suppose we can save one single assignment. The gain is probably not
> > noticeable as once we set node->next to NULL, node->locked is likely in
> > local cache line and the assignment operation is cheap.
>
> Would be nice to have this as a separate, add-on patch. Every single
> instruction removal that has no downside is an upside!
>
> You can add a comment that explains it.
Yup, especially a spin lock (and one that I have found to be be used
very frequently when running workloads on big machines).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
